Remaining Unapologetic in Support of Evil

by
Thomas A. Droleskey

One of the chief differences between the organized crime family of the naturalist "left," whose assortment of fools, frauds and fairies have gathered in Charlotte, North Carolina, for the formal opening of the 2012 Democratic National Convention after a day of preliminary activities yesterday, Monday, September 3, 2012, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius X and the Commemoration of Our Lady, the Mother of the Divine Shepherd, is that the partisans of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" make no compromises when it comes to the false principles that they support.

That is, unlike the members of the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" who gathered in Tampa, Florida, a week ago now, the partisans of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" are not afraid to take firm, outspoken and consistent stands in support of one moral evil under cover of the civil law after another. Professional "leftists" do not permit themselves to be deterred in pursuit of evil by focus groups by taking positions on that many Republicans, including former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Willard Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts), said last week were "divisive" issues such as the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn (see Only So Much Tolerance In The Republican Big Tent and Herods To The Naturalist Right, Herods To The Naturalist Left). The lefties and pinkos and weirdos who have assembled in Charlotte, North Carolina, are loud and they are in the face of anyone who will listen to them, knowing full well that their system of indoctrination that includes America's concentration camps and the mass media (entertainment, news, advertising) have taken full advantage of the anti-Incarantional errors of Modernity that were let loose as a result of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King to convince nearly half of the citizens of voting age of this country that they, the pro-death and pro-perversity advocates, are in the "mainstream" of American life while anyone and everyone who opposes them are "extremists."

Professional naturalists in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" are petrified of any charge of extremism on "social issues" that would never be considered "open for debate" in a land whose citizens are duly submissive to the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church. Petrified. Truly petrified. Look at the extent to which Willard Mitt Romney has gone to boast of the fact that he believes in what he refers to as "legal abortion" in the usual "hard cases" plus what he calls "the health of the mother." Look at the desire on the part of latter-day disciples of Machiavelli in that organized crime family of the "right" to plot and scheme and maneuver to get rid of the likes of United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) (see Karl Rove: Self-Anointed Political Godfather).

Not so with the leftists. They support unrestricted baby-killing on demand without any fear of offending "moderate" or "swing" voters. The support special "rights," including that of marriage itself, for those engaged in unnatural acts of perversion in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments knowing full well that popular support for this unspeakable abomination is growing every year and that it will only be a matter of time, if God does not intervene before then with a direct chastisement upon this nation for its promotion of sin under cover of the civil law and throughout the nooks and crannies of popular culture, before their hapless opponents in the organized crime family of the "right" drop all mention of "traditional marriage.

Indeed, David Koch, a man whose "Super Political Action Committee" ("Super PAC") has funded many Republican candidates, including the "pizza man," Herman Cain, himself, has recently announced his support of what is called "gay marriage" (Koch brother breaks from GOP, supports perverted marriage). Republicans follow the money, ladies and gentlemen. They will dance to the tune of what the money-men tell them to do, if not by agreeing with someone with deep pockets as David Koch then by remaining silent about such a supposedly "divisive" issue.

Furthermore, unlike Willard Mitt Romney, the Republican Party presidential nominee who has gone to great lengths to distance himself from his party's no-exceptions stand on abortion as contained in the 2012 Republican National Platform, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero and his pro-abortion Catholic Vice President, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., agree completely with the 2012 Democratic National Platform's complete, unequivocal support for the unrestricted slaughter of babies by chemical and surgical means and with the platform's support for "gay marriage" that was made more possible by Biden himself four months ago (see Abiding Biden And His Counsel and Silence In The Face Of Advancing Evils)

Other than featuring partly pro-life/partly pro-death speakers who either did not speak about abortion directly or did so in code language, the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" did not feature a single speaker who was known for a defense of the innocent preborn without any exception whatsoever. Not one. (Please, please, pleased. Do not cite the man who gave the closing "prayer" last week, the man who will do in Charlotte on Thursday evening, September 6, 2012, the man who is Happy As A Stuffed Clam With Himself these days).

Everyone who is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention starting today is militantly pro-abortion, starting with the pro-abortion Catholic who is the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, California, Antonio Villaraigosa, who is serving as the chairman of the event. One of the loudest of the loud mouths in favor of unrestricted baby-killing, the man who signed the executive order to permit the United States Food and Drug Administration to first test and then to market the human pesticide, RU-486, and who thrice vetoed the partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions as it did not contain a "health of the mother" "exception" of the sort that was referred to by Willard Mitt Romney last week, the man from Hope, Arkansas, by way of Georgetown University and Yale Law School and Chappaqua, New York, former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

Some members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" have berated members of the Democratic Party as extremists for their support of the killing of babies born alive. One who did so two days was a failed 2012 Republican presidential hopeful, the former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newton Leroy Gingrich, who engaged in the following exchange with a columnist, Thomas Friedman, of The New York Times on the National Broadcasting Company television network's Meet the Press program on Sunday, September 2, 2012, the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Stephen of Hungary:

DAVID GREGORY: Understanding, Mr. Speaker, the difference between Todd Akin talking about rape versus the abortion plank of the platform, I understand there is that distinction. Nevertheless, the question, social issues versus economic issues as being a big motivator for women, is a question.

NEWT GINGRICH: Let me just take a second to disagree with Carly [Fiorina]. I think Todd Akin was the choice of the people of Missouri. I think Todd Akin has publicly apologized, and the last poll shows he's beating the Democratic senator. I think that we ought to go on from that. Karl Rove said some terrible things on Friday for which he has apologized, which should remind us, people make mistakes.

GREGORY: He was joking about if he shows up murdered somewhere--

GINGRICH: In the age of Gabby Giffords, it is not a joke to say that a member of Congress ought to get murdered. And I'm frankly fed up with the one-sided bias, OK? Let me give you two examples. Vice president of the United States goes to a black audience and says, 'If the Republicans win, you will be in chains.' How can Biden remain as vice president? Where's the outrage over overt, deliberate racism? We talk about people saying things, they ought to get off tickets. How come Biden shouldn't get off the ticket?

Second example: The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I'm a Planned Parenthood Democrat on the issue of choice, and I think that that is where the country should be, that is where many, many women in this country are, and I am glad there are people running for the presidency who will defend that position. Period, paragraph, end it.

GREGORY: Newt, I guess the question too is whether you're seeking, even in the Akin example, to seek an equivalency between that and, say, Biden, who was using language that Republicans have used about the regulatory shackles as opposed to making an overt racial--

GINGRICH: Biden was not talking to a black audience about regulatory shackles, OK? Let me go back to Tom's point. So, you think it's acceptable to have a party committed to tax-paid abortion in the eighth and ninth month? And you think that's a sustainable position in the United States? If the news media spent as much time on the extremism of the Democrats as they spend trying to attack us, they would not be able to adopt that plank this week.

As monstrous as Thomas Friedman's belief that the slaughter of a baby who has been is, the poor, poor man who has no idea what awaits him at his Particular Judgment if he does not convert to the Catholic Faith and repent publicly of his support for one evil after another is being intellectually consistent. That is, what's the big deal about killing a baby in the eighth or ninth month of his development in his mother's womb when you can kill him at six or eight weeks?

Here is a news flash to Newton Leroy Gingrich, a convert to the conciliar, apostate brand of Catholicism: anyone who supports the direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life at any time for any reason has taken an "extreme position," a description that applies to Gingrich himself for supporting the killing of babies in the usual (not the Mitt Romney "usual plus one") "hard cases."

The killing of a baby in the later stages of his development in his mother's womb is no more morally heinous than killing a baby in the earlier stages, a point that I made five years ago when explaining that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart was not a victory at all as it is still perfectly permissible to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy by methods other than method under review by the Court in that case, partial-birth abortion:

1. The direct, intentional killing of an innocent
human being is equally morally heinous no matter the age at which the
human being is killed. That is, the killing of six week old child in his
mother's womb is the same crime morally as the direct, intentional
killing of a ninety year old man.

2. The particular method by which a human being is
killed does not make the act of killing any more immoral than the use of
another method, admitting that it is permissible in the administration
of civil justice for legislators and jurists to take into consideration
such methods when legislating and meting out punishments for those
adjudged guilty after due process of law of having committed acts that
of their nature are in opposition to the binding precepts of the Fifth
Commandment.

3. Thus it is that the use of the baby-killing
method invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell, known "medically" as "intact
dilation and extraction," to provide a means of killing a baby that was
less "invasive" and thus allegedly less is no more morally heinous than
the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means a suction vacuum
machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum
cleaner.

4. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is
no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by
means of the use of various injections, including that of potassium
chloride, into the baby so as to kill it in the womb before it is passed
out stillborn or taken out by means of a Caesarian section.

5. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is
no more morally heinous the the killing of an innocent preborn baby by
means of the use of what is known as the "hysterotomy," a procedure by
which a preborn baby is killed by the use of a procedure similar to a
Caesarian section, except that the child's neck is twisted in the womb
before it is removed. (The hysterotomy was made famous in the case of
Dr. Kenneth Edelin.)

6. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is
no more morally heinous than the "dilation and evacuation" method of
killing a baby by means of carving up a baby in the uterus and then
extracting his remains with forceps.

7. Those, including some conciliar bishops, have
said that partial birth abortion is infanticide have missed the point
entirely: each and every abortion kills a living baby deader than dead.
Each abortion, whether chemically induced or surgically performed, is
infanticide. (See Every Abortion Kills a Baby Dead).

8.The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the
law of the land contains an immoral "life of the mother" exception,
meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it
will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life
is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a
living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact
conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?

9. Baby-killers will simply resort to the dilation
and evacuation means of killing children if they cannot justify the use
of partial birth abortion, meaning, as I have been contended since 1995,
that zero babies will be saved by the law and by yesterday's decision
in Gonzales v. Carhart. Indeed, Associate Justice Anthony
Kennedy went to great lengths to remind those who challenged the law
that the other procedures, which he described in great detail, would
remain perfectly legal. Justice Kennedy also explained that baby-killers
who "accidentally" turned a dilation and evacuation killing of a child
into an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) killing
of a child would face no legal liability:

This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent
requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental
intact D&E. If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a
D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's
anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one
of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present.
18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). When a doctor in that
situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the
doctor does not violate the Act. It is true that intent to cause a
result may sometimes be inferred if a person "knows that that result is
practically certain to follow from his conduct." 1 LaFave §5.2(a), at
341. Yet abortion doctors intending at the outset to perform a standard
D&E procedure will not know that a prohibited abortion "is
practically certain to follow from" their conduct. Ibid. A fetus is only
delivered largely intact in a small fraction of the overall number of
D&E abortions. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. (Gonzales v. Carhart)

10. In other words, ladies and
gentlemen, baby-killers will still be able to kill babies in the later
stages of pregnancy by the use of the saline solution abortion and the
hysterotomy and the dilation and evacuation (and even an actual
hysterectomy performed for reasons of killing a preborn child and to
honor a woman's elective wishes to render herself sterile from that
point forward). The belief that a "victory" was won yesterday is an
illusion of the worst sort.

The whole of the
"incrementalist" approach to "restoring" legal protection to the
innocent preborn is based upon the lie that it is "necessary" to concede
in civil law that there are some circumstances in which a baby can be
directly targeted for execution. This lie is itself premised upon the
false belief that baby-killers will be scrupulous in observing the
"exceptions" that the incrementalists get enacted into law. As I noted four years ago now:

Do we really think that those who kill for a
living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact
conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?

Most of those who identify themselves as "conservatives" are apologetic and tongue-tied when endeavoring to explain even their partial opposition to chemical and surgical baby-killing, Those of the "left" are unapologetic supporters of baby-killing and perversity and other evils.

If people are willing to scratch below the surface and avoid superficial conclusions about events in a world that has been thrown upside down by the mutually reinforcing errors of Modernity and Modernism, they would find that the naturalists of the "left" have taken true concepts and inverted them for their own nefarious purposes.

That is, most of the naturalists of the "left" believe that their ideology must be accepted without question. Those who serve as administrators of universities and colleges or as judges or as legislators or as elected executives or political appointees (such as the approximately 3700 people who serve in a president's Cabinet or in the White House) or career bureaucrats (civil servants) believe that in their policies dogmatically. Most of these naturalists believe that "the government" is true secular "church," outside of which no one is free to govern his own life. They believe that those who dissent from their political dogmas are, in essence, "heretics," if you will, who must be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Most of these people believe that the citizens are indeed the "mere creatures of the state" who must obey them, who have been given the necessity tools to order social and economic life to achieve what they consider to be "justice."

Although it is considered incendiary to call such people Marxists, this is indeed what they all. They admire the likes of Fidel Castro in Communist Cuba and Hugo Chavez's authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Some of them were open admirers of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the El Salvadoran rebels during the 1980s. (The Sandinistas are, of course, back in power in Nicaragua, having won at polls on November 5, 2006,what they lost there on February 25, 1990, after ten and one-half years of brutal, murderous Communist rule in this central American country. Ah, yes, the voice of the "people." President Daniel Ortega, who ordered the slaughter of the Mesquite Indians in Nicaragua and who repressed political opposition from 1979 to 2000, was congratulated on his victory by two of his strongest supporters, James Earl Carter, Jr., who wept openly at Ortega's loss to Violetta Chamorro in 1990, and one Fidel Castro.) Our "leftists" believe in all of the shibboleths of egalitarianism, except, of course, that they believe themselves to be more "equal" than anyone else, and feminism and environmentalism and evolutionism and redistributionism. They believe that they have the right to dictate to the citizens how much of their money they can keep, what they can do with it, what they should eat, at what temperatures they may heat or cool their houses. Some would like to control how much gasoline that the "people" could purchase in a given money to "save" the environment.

Such people are not prone to compromise. They believe in their false dogmas with religious fervor. Some of them truly hate anyone who dares to disagree with them, whether that disagreement stem from an objective presentation of facts on the merely natural level attesting to their lies and misrepresentations or from those who user deeper, supernatural arguments to demonstrate that they, the leftists, are enemies of Christ the King and thus of all legitimate social order. The naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" will cling tenaciously, yes, even to the point of their political deaths, to whatever policy gains they have achieved by their fraudulent assertions and/or the use of raw political power.

Yes, the "left" is committed to statism.

The "left" is committed to surgical abortion-on-demand without any restrictions whatsoever.

The "right," on the other hand, is committed to one thing: getting elected for the sake of getting elected. Period. The most pressing moral issue of our day, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, has disappeared from the agenda of the "right" because the "people" are concerned about King Money. Republican careerists and even some of the Tax Enough Already Party members who were elected to Congress on November 2, 2010, were concerned only about the "money," oblivious to the fact that that God is never going to allow a nation that kills over four thousand innocent babies a day by surgical means, not even counting the thousands more who are killed by means of chemical abortifacients, under cover of the civil law to know long term economic prosperity. Look at those candidates' websites. Most of them did not mention abortion whatsoever. Some, like the much vaunted United States Marco Rubio (R-Florida), the Catholic-turned Mormon-turned Catholic, would not even address the issue two years ago when debating his chief opponent, the slimy chameleon known by the name of Charlie Christ, who is now the former Governor of Florida and who will be speaking at, you got it, the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina this week (as will, most likely, former Governor of Utah and failed 2012 Republican presidential hopeful, the "moderate" Jon Huntsman).

This is progress? What about truth? What about planting seeds to change hearts and minds? If one believes there is some utility in running for office, one must speak to the truth as there is not one blessed example that can be cited of a candidate who kept his mouth shut on the "social issues" in order to win an office becoming an outspoken advocate of those issues once elected. Compromise once to get elected, compromise again and again and again to stay elected and then to get elected to some "better" office. It's a farce from beginning to end as it is all based in naturalism and not in pleasing the true God of Divine Revelation as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

Babies are being killed at more or less the same rate now as they were after the elections of 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010.No naturalistic farce called an election has ever saved a single, solitary baby from execution under cover of the civil law. When are we going to learn? When?

When, my few and once again vanishing readers, when are we going to learn? Republicans have repeatedly backed off of the single most important moral issue of the day in order to themselves more "marketable" in the eyes of the "moderates" who are concerned about "King Money," "Queen Money," "Prince Money, "Princess Money," and just plain "Citizen Money." No country is great if it is reduced merely to the level of being concerned about material prosperity. Orestes Brownson pointed this out in
National Greatness in 1845. So did Pope Leo XIII, writing in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Establishment Republicans have used the bogeymen in the Democratic Party to instill so much fear in the minds of "pro-life" voters that they, the voters, will vote for completely open pro-aborts because Republican Party pro-aborts are, they reason, "better" than Democratic Party pro-aborts. Voters in the State of Connecticut were faced with the diabolical choices of pro-abortion candidates for the state's governorship (Republican Thomas Foley, Democrat Daniel Malloy) and open seat in the United States Senate (Republican Linda McMahon, Democrat Richard Blumenthal) in both major political parties. This is progress? And this is to say nothing about the open advances that establishment Republicans have made to court so-called "gay voters." This is not progress. This is madness writ large. Absurdity. Have we lost all sense of what Silvio Cardinal Antoniano wrote in the Sixteenth Century?

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.

Those who want to think that we have made "progress" in the past few days will do so. Some of these people who place their hopes repeatedly in the organized crime family of the naturalist "right" were in seventh heaven twelve years ago when George Walker Bush won the presidency, forgetting that it was George Walker Bush's statism and overspending on domestic programs and on two needless wars that have cost us much in the blood of our own citizens (and of those of the nations we have invaded) that made the election of Democrats in 2006 and of Obama himself in 2008 possible. This is nothing other than a vicious cycle of naturalism.

Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-three years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?

We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.